Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffJ.B. Nicholson-Owens Date: Jul 11, 2004 6:38am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Where else is quality an showstopper issue?

I'm not aware of any policy for archive.org that makes a judgement based on percieved quality. I would argue that any audio transcoded from a lossy encoder is a poor quality copy and should be at least noted so people have a chance to download the best quality copy. Archive.org doesn't note the lineage of all the audio files so one can do this for themselves. But if the quality issue is the stopper, wait for a DVD rip.

I would say a lack of a proper license (Michael Moore and Lion Gate Film's sentiment should not be enough) should be far more troubling than the quality issue.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffsimon c Date: Jul 11, 2004 12:07pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Where else is quality an showstopper issue?

Actually, worth noting - although we don't yet show it on download pages (but are looking at that), we keep a track of which of the files is the original, and therefore highest quality of the ones uploaded:

http://ia200029.eu.archive.org/petabox/items/hda6/movies/night_of_the_living_dead/night_of_the_living_dead_files.xml

If you look in this XML, you'll see that the type is set as 'derivative' for those files that have been derived from the original. This is clearly going to be important in the future, so we do try to keep track of it.

Thanks,
s!

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)